Evaluating the Effect of Pressure-Controlled Versus Volume-Controlled Ventilation Modes on Intraoperative Bleeding in Rhinoplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Q2 Medicine Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-29 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.5812/aapm-151582
Behrooz Zaman, Masood Mohseni, Samad Noorizad, Soudabeh Jalali Motlagh, Taymaz Amiraslani, Monal Sayyahi
{"title":"Evaluating the Effect of Pressure-Controlled Versus Volume-Controlled Ventilation Modes on Intraoperative Bleeding in Rhinoplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Behrooz Zaman, Masood Mohseni, Samad Noorizad, Soudabeh Jalali Motlagh, Taymaz Amiraslani, Monal Sayyahi","doi":"10.5812/aapm-151582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intraoperative bleeding is one of the major challenges in rhinoplasty.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effect of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) versus volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) modes on intraoperative bleeding during rhinoplasty.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a double-blinded randomized clinical trial, 58 candidates for rhinoplasty were randomly assigned to the PCV or VCV groups. Anesthesia was induced and maintained using the same total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) method in both groups. The amount of bleeding was assessed by counting blood-soaked gauze and measuring the content of the suctioned fluid. Additionally, bleeding in the surgical field was assessed by the surgeon using the Boezaart criterion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean intraoperative bleeding volume was 30 ± 45 mL in the PCV group and 100 ± 120 mL in the VCV group (P < 0.001). According to logistic regression analysis, the odds of experiencing moderately severe or severe bleeding in the VCV group were 5.4 times higher than in the PCV group. After adjusting for confounding variables, the odds ratio increased to 26.8 (95% CI = 1.2, 59.3).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of the study suggest that the pressure-controlled mode may lead to lower intraoperative bleeding compared to the volume-controlled mode. The decrease in peak airway pressure is likely a contributing factor to this observation.</p>","PeriodicalId":7841,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","volume":"14 5","pages":"e151582"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11895793/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm-151582","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Intraoperative bleeding is one of the major challenges in rhinoplasty.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) versus volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) modes on intraoperative bleeding during rhinoplasty.

Methods: In a double-blinded randomized clinical trial, 58 candidates for rhinoplasty were randomly assigned to the PCV or VCV groups. Anesthesia was induced and maintained using the same total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) method in both groups. The amount of bleeding was assessed by counting blood-soaked gauze and measuring the content of the suctioned fluid. Additionally, bleeding in the surgical field was assessed by the surgeon using the Boezaart criterion.

Results: The mean intraoperative bleeding volume was 30 ± 45 mL in the PCV group and 100 ± 120 mL in the VCV group (P < 0.001). According to logistic regression analysis, the odds of experiencing moderately severe or severe bleeding in the VCV group were 5.4 times higher than in the PCV group. After adjusting for confounding variables, the odds ratio increased to 26.8 (95% CI = 1.2, 59.3).

Conclusions: The results of the study suggest that the pressure-controlled mode may lead to lower intraoperative bleeding compared to the volume-controlled mode. The decrease in peak airway pressure is likely a contributing factor to this observation.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估压力控制与容量控制通气模式对鼻整形术中出血的影响:一项随机临床试验。
背景:术中出血是鼻整形的主要挑战之一。目的:本研究旨在评估压力控制通气(PCV)与容量控制通气(VCV)模式对鼻整形术中出血的影响。方法:在一项双盲随机临床试验中,58名鼻整形患者随机分为PCV组和VCV组。两组均采用相同的全静脉麻醉(TIVA)方法诱导和维持麻醉。通过计算纱布浸血量和吸痰液含量来评估出血量。此外,外科医生使用Boezaart标准评估手术野出血。结果:PCV组平均术中出血量为30±45 mL, VCV组平均术中出血量为100±120 mL (P < 0.001)。根据logistic回归分析,VCV组出现中重度或重度出血的几率是PCV组的5.4倍。校正混杂变量后,优势比增加到26.8 (95% CI = 1.2, 59.3)。结论:本研究结果提示,与容量控制模式相比,压力控制模式可导致更低的术中出血。气道压力峰值的降低可能是导致这一观察结果的一个因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Postoperative Pain Management Between Saphenous Nerve Block and High-Volume Proximal Adductor Canal Block for Arthroscopic Knee Surgery. Analysis of the Effects of Various Analgesia Methods on Post-cesarean Pain and Their Correlation with Inflammatory Biomarkers. Comparison of Lidocaine and Dexmedetomidine in Preventing Fentanyl-induced Cough in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. Comparison of the Sedative, Recovery, and Analgesic Effects of Oral Dexmedetomidine, Ketamine, and Midazolam for Premedication in Children Undergoing Inguinal Hernia Surgery: A Randomized Double-Blind Study. Prophylactic Role of Ketamine and Dexmedetomidine on the Prevention of Shivering in Patients Undergoing Inguinal Herniorrhaphy by Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1